Bridging Distribution Learning and Image Clustering in High-Dimensional Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distribution learning focuses on learning the probability density function from a set of data samples. In contrast, clustering aims to group similar objects together in an unsupervised manner. Usually, these two tasks are considered unrelated. However, the relationship between the two may be indirectly correlated, with Gaussian Mixture Models (GMM) acting as a bridge. In this paper, we focus on exploring the correlation between distribution learning and clustering, with the motivation to fill the gap between these two fields, utilizing an autoencoder (AE) to encode images into a high-dimensional latent space. Then, Monte-Carlo Marginalization (MCMarg) and Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence loss are used to fit the Gaussian components of the GMM and learn the data distribution. Finally, image clustering is achieved through each Gaussian component of GMM. Yet, the “curse of dimensionality” poses severe challenges for most clustering algorithms. Compared with the classic Expectation-Maximization (EM) Algorithm, experimental results show that MCMarg and KL divergence can greatly alleviate the difficulty. Based on the experimental results, we believe distribution learning can exploit the potential of GMM in image clustering within high-dimensional space.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".